Hacker News Reader

Manning isn't the only example of vindictive prosecutors run amok. Aaron Swartz was facing a deck stacked so heavily that he was risking 35 years in prison for excercising his basic right to a trial by jury. And if you doubt that the same psychotic vindictivness would be in play here, consider the case of Thomas Drake.

Indeed, Drake's case is the essential precursor to understanding Snowdwn's, in that it was the one that unambiguously revealed (a) how out of bounds the NSA had grown and (b) how effectively the whistleblower system had been transformed into a means of ferreting out principled opponents with the law on their side.

Snowden had no illusions about getting a fair trial. He's running from a kangaroo court, not impartial justice. And if you think his "legitimacy" as a "conscientious objector" has any bearing whatsoever, then the thrust of the entire revelation has been lost on you. This isn't some theatrical act of protest. This is hard evidence of a massive criminal conspiracy conducted by the US military against the American people. And the power to which he's speaking truth isn't them, it's us. Some can handle it, and respond judiciously. Others freak out, and retreat to blanket denials. Insisting that Snowden stand trial on dubious charges in a court rigged against him is probably the worst imaginable response to the confirmation he's risked his life to deliver.

Manning is in the military, so his case exists in a totally different legal system (which I personally don't think is a good idea, ie: separate system for military justice).

Revealing the spying system gathering US Citizen data is probably the whistleblower part that might be protected. I don't think that the surveillance of foreign citizens at universities in HK or wherever is going to get protected, and revealing that type of stuff is going to be prosecuted.

Your viewpoint on spying may be that it isn't right, however, I believe the only legal defense for Snowden is in the US Constitution, and it grants no rights to foreigners, as far as I recall.

I find it unfortunate at this point that the main story is starting to revolve around Snowden and his attempts at finding sanctuary instead of whether or not what he revealed is important.

>I realize this may not be a popular opinion,

I think you hit the nail on the head.

>To that America it is easy to see Snowden as a traitor

We shouldn't pander to those who refuse to open a dictionary and learn the meaning of the word "traitor".

> running to China and Russia isn't helping.

The important thing to notice here is to ask why anyone might find this necessary. There simply aren't any other places who can or would resist US "diplomacy"

>1. Snowden is a civilian. He has not submitted himself to military law.

I think it is not imprudent for Snowden to assume that he may be treated as an "enemy combatant". If the gov't declares him to be under the auspices of the military, I doubt they will announce that publicly.

>the more Snowden acts like a criminal, the more he will be perceived to be a criminal.

Considering the recent conduct of the US gov't WRT related whistleblowers, I cannot find fault in Snowden for wishing to avoid that. Either for the sake of his personal safety, or for the sake of keeping the issue in the press, and forcing more attention to the illegal spying.

I see your reasoning, but the "wider America" of which you speak - or at least a large portion of it - would still be calling for him to be tossed in prison (or worse) for being a "traitor" after he turned himself in. IOW I don't think it would help him much in the court of public opinion.

Further, the distinction between indiscriminately leaking and selective/targeted leaking is a real one but I don't think it will result in him being spared in any sense. I can't blame him for wanting to prolong media exposure instead of being locked up awaiting trial for "espionage" while the story quickly disappears from the headlines and from the national and global consciousness.

>Snowden is acting like he did something wrong. He should own it.

Easy for you to say. You're not the one facing an unwinnable trial and/or serious human rights violations.

Yeah - the "own it" advice seems crazy in this situation. I mean, the guy already put his face on it, blew the whistle. He "owned" it. Now he's trying to avoid a life of constant suffering for doing what he saw as the right thing.

From the standpoint of his welfare, yeah, he had to move.

This isn't a startup with a PR problem after making a tough but principled decision. This is a guy who worked within government, pulled a Bradley Manning, and is still at large.

Startup marketing slash public relations 101 advice just isn't very realistic in this situation.

Now, if you're talking about the Greater Good, and making him even more of a sacrificial lamb -- if you're arguing that he should come back here, take his lumps, 'take the argument to the people' (as if he'd be allowed to ... we haven't heard much from Manning, right?) so as to sway public opinion a few more points ...

Well, that's a valid point of view, but if you want to prevail on other people to sacrifice more for the sake of the blown whistle, who pick on one of the few people who are already sacrificing? I don't know if Snowden counts as a "good guy" or not, but as a whistleblower it looks like he did a bang-up job, so instead of griping, just come to Ecuador and buy him a beer or something.

Most people don't even know who Bradley Manning is, and the news organizations have all but moved on at this point. If he got more coverage, or if people knew him, he might have a better shake, but as it is, he's probably sitting in the place where he'll die.

I'd say Snowden has given his decisions considerable thought, and he's taking the only course of action that doesn't cause him to disappear into a dark hole, as he asserts.

Snowden is acting like he did something wrong.

You're projecting, and plenty of people don't see it this way, which is exactly the problem Obama has on his hands and why the mainstream focus (that you appear to adopt as your own) is on Snowden. One facet of this is decrying him for not throwing himself on the sword of butthurt intelligence agencies, instead of the revelations themselves. Do you contend that killing the messenger is sometimes justified?

>Snowden is acting like he did something wrong. He should own it.

Big difference between acting like you did something wrong and acting like you think another party thinks you did something wrong. When said other party is a government that can torture you, confine you, or kill you, you run. That is 'owning it' in that case.